Building starships on the ground ... no, never, and after years of posting and refuting and this and that I'm through arguing about it, because it is too much like dealing with flat-earthers. Have fun w/ your magic box tech.

Click to expand...

So the ship that can break the light-speed barrier with the use of magic crystals can't be built on the ground? It has a matter/energy transportation device, but cannot be built on a planet?

I guess everyone's got their line. This one just seems a bit unrealistic in the unrealistic world of Trek.

Building starships on the ground ... no, never, and after years of posting and refuting and this and that I'm through arguing about it, because it is too much like dealing with flat-earthers. Have fun w/ your magic box tech.

Click to expand...

So the ship that can break the light-speed barrier with the use of magic crystals can't be built on the ground? It has a matter/energy transportation device, but cannot be built on a planet?

I guess everyone's got their line. This one just seems a bit unrealistic in the unrealistic world of Trek.

Click to expand...

That can indeed be a judgment call.

True story. When I was writing my Gary Seven books, I originally included a scene in which Roberta Lincoln learned how to turn into cat like Isis, but my editor thought that was going a bit too far.

You'll find a lot of credible scientists who are big Trek fans because of the "fun" science and the adventures it allows. However, find me three credible ones who say the biggest features of Trek science are possible or even a fraction of possible. Transporters as in Trek: never. Artificial gravity as in Trek: never. Warp speed as in Trek: never. Almost instantaneous communications over light years as in Trek: never. Time travel as in Trek: never. If they aren't concerned about it, I'm not going to be concerned. If the Enterprise is suddenly used like a submarine and starts traversing a planet's oceans, maybe that will be the breaking point for me. Oh. Wait -- .

Seriously, Trek is meant to be approachable, mainstream entertainment. It's pop music, not opera. Within that genre, whether one considers it to be like The Beatles or the Jonas Brothers is a matter of personal taste, but those are the parameters of comparison. Neither are Verdi, nor should they even be compared to him. As others have said, Trek is no more (or less) serious science fiction than "Star Wars", "Babylon 5", "Battlestar Galactica", or anything else of that type.

As far as Trek becoming Harry Potter goes, I think Q pretty much took it there whenever he appeared, and he's a very popular Trek character. We are never to understand how he does what he does with just a wink or a wave. He is a true wizard. Odo may have crossed the line, too.

Warp drive, transporters and interbreeding aliens are far from even semi-plausible.

Click to expand...

I said they were presented as being semi-plausible not that they were semi-plausible. They are presented as pieces of technology that work in a certain ways to perform certain tasks and (usually) abide by the rules of the fictional universe they're a part of. Interbreeding aliens is dumb though even with the whole thing about aliens seeding humanoid life on planets 4 billion years ago in the TNG episode The Chase.

Warp drive, transporters and interbreeding aliens are far from even semi-plausible.

Click to expand...

I said they were presented as being semi-plausible not that they were semi-plausible. They are presented as pieces of technology that work in a certain ways to perform certain tasks and (usually) abide by the rules of the fiction universe they're a part of. Interbreeding aliens is dumb though even with the whole thing about aliens seeding humanoid life on planets 4 billion years ago in the TNG episode The Chase.

Click to expand...

They work as well and as consistently as the plot needs. Transporters work perfectly until they get in the way of a needed plot point. You can't go from complaining about a black hole that does what the plot needs and then ignore all the other time the "science" in Star Trek does the same thing.

My biggest being the supernova that threatens the galaxy and black holes that sends you back in time or destroy stuff depending on what the plot requires.

Click to expand...

Star Trek's strong point has always been characterization, not science.

I mean, does anyone here actually believe that if you fly around the sun really fast that you can go backwards and forwards in time? Did anyone ever actually believe it?

Click to expand...

There's a difference between fictional science and technology that doesn't exist and science that we know TODAY is completely wrong. Even if the future science and technology wasn't exactly right Star Trek usually tried to present it in a believable way that was consistent with the rules of its own fictional universe. Without this Star Trek ceases to be science fiction and becomes space fantasy with space magic.

They work as well and as consistently as the plot needs. Transporters work perfectly until they get in the way of a needed plot point. You can't go from complaining about a black hole that does what the plot needs and then ignore all the other time the "science" in Star Trek does the same thing.

Click to expand...

Sure they bend and break science all the time in sci-fi to serve the plot but bad writing that randomly breaking the internal logic of the story or fictional universe ruins it. If you're going to use the argument that it's sci-fi so anything goes then we might as well just have the characters waving magic wands to make things happen.

They work as well and as consistently as the plot needs. Transporters work perfectly until they get in the way of a needed plot point. You can't go from complaining about a black hole that does what the plot needs and then ignore all the other time the "science" in Star Trek does the same thing.

Click to expand...

Sure they bend and break science all the time in sci-fi to serve the plot but bad writing that randomly breaking the internal logic of the story or fictional universe ruins it. If you're going to use the argument that it's sci-fi so anything goes then we might as well just the characters waving magic wands to make things happen.

Click to expand...

Yeah. Watch numerous TNG episodes where Geordi does effectively that to a piece of equipment; or Crusher does to cuts, broken ribs, etc. That kind of thing REALLY affected TNG's (and modern Star Trek's popularity with the audience and harder fanbase...oh, wait, that right TNG is 'real' Star tgrek and STID isn't in many fans eyes...

Yeah. Watch numerous TNG episodes where Geordi does effectively that to a piece of equipment; or Crusher does to cuts, broken ribs, etc. That kind of thing REALLY affected TNG's (and modern Star Trek's popularity with the audience and harder fanbase...oh, wait, that right TNG is 'real' Star tgrek and STID isn't in many fans eyes...

Click to expand...

I'll happily criticise any episode that does that if I think it detracts from the story and breaks internal logic. Medical technology for treating injuries is pretty well established and fairly consistent. I have no problem with Abrams Trek movies being different I have problems with the quality of the writers.

It simply comes down to some posters having the opinion that if it happens in Trek they like, they try desperately to explain it. If it happens in Trek they dislike, they act like it's a deal breaker.

Click to expand...

Yeah, there's a bit of a double standard there. Wrath of Khan is full of plot holes and pseudo-science, but it's still the best Trek movie ever. And Spock's very existence is an absurdity that puts underwater starships to shame, but who among us would want to do without him?

(I mean, seriously, a green-blooded, copper-based alien lifeform can breed with humans--despite a completely different blood chemistry? And people balk at building starships on the ground?)

I can see where people could dislike the whole black hole thing in ST09 if it were a proper black hole.

But I think they writers went more than out of their to say this made up element thing allows them to make an artificial black hole. Right there it is already different from anything occurring in natural space, it was never intended to be used by Spock Prime to travel in time. Turns out that was a convenient side effect that played into the story.

Personally I haven't seen anything in Trek 09 or STID that is anymore ridiculous than dylithium crystals or the Genesis Device.

Or the Nexus? Or Ilia, Decker,and V'Ger coming together in a giant sparkly orgasm?

Look, a lot of the "science" in Trek is more metaphorical than anything else. Like the transporter splitting Kirk into two different aspects of his personality. Or V'Ger as a case study of intellect without emotion. Or Garth's shape-changing ability reflecting his unstable personality.

Is it it hard science? Of course not. But it works on a symbolic, emotional level . . . like a lot of Ray Bradbury's stuff.